Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 546 (RAJ)

Kamal Kishore Khetawat v. State of Rajasthan

2016-04-20

ARUN BHANSALI

body2016
JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. Though the petitions are listed on applications filed by the respondents seeking vacation of interim order granted by this Court, with the consent of the parties, these writ petitions have been finally heard. 2. The present writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners questioning the legality and validity of the notices issued by the Tehsildar (Revenue), Deedwana, under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 ('the Act') whereby the petitioners have been called upon to vacant the land which is comprised in Khasra No. 3052. 3. In response to the writ petition, the respondents have indicated that pursuant to the notice issued to the petitioners, the proceedings have been determined by the Tehsildar under Section 91 of the Act and the petitioners have been held to be trespassers to the extent of land comprised in Khasra No. 3052, which is recorded as Gair Mumkin Rasta. 4. Various pleas and submissions have been made by learned counsel for the petitioners questioning the legality and validity of the notice issued, order passed on the said notice including the plea that their constructions stand on Khasra No. 3074/3051 and not on Khasra No. 3052, which is recorded as Gair Mumkin Rasta. 5. Learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents, besides questioning the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners on facts has submitted that out of the above writ petitions, even before the interim order was passed by this Court, in five writ petitions constructions to the extent the same were part of Khasra No. 3052 had already been removed and only in two cases i.e. Kamal Kishore Khetawat and Kamla Devi constructions are yet to be demolished and in some cases the overburden post demolition is still lying, which is required to be removed. 6. Further submission has been made that the order passed on notice under Section 91 of the Act is open to appeal under Section 75 of the Act and therefore, on account of availability of alternative remedy, the writ petition is not maintainable. 7. Reliance has been placed on judgment of this Court in Mahesh v. District Collector, Rajsamand & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2074/2016 decided on 18.3.2016. 8. 7. Reliance has been placed on judgment of this Court in Mahesh v. District Collector, Rajsamand & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2074/2016 decided on 18.3.2016. 8. Faced with the above situation and the fact that out of seven cases, in five cases demolition have already taken place, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to withdraw these writ petitions with liberty to approach the appellate authority under Section 75 of the Act to question the legality and validity of the orders passed by the respondents on notice under Section 91 of the Act. 9. In view of the above submissions, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the appellate authority under Section 75 of the Act. No order need to be passed on the applications under Section 226(3) of the Constitution of India for vacating the interim order and the same are rendered infrcutuous. Consequently, the applications under Section 226(3) of the Constitution of India for vacating the interim order are dismissed as having become infructuous. 10. In case, the appeals to be filed, have been rendered barred by limitation, any application filed by the petitioners under Sections 5 & 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 shall be considered sympathetically by the appellate authority. 11. Looking to the peculiar circumstances of the case, the respondents shall not demolish the constructions of the petitioners Kamal Kishore Khetawat and Kamla Devi till 28.4.2016. It is made clear that granting of this limited relief would not be taken as expression of any opinion by this Court on merits of the plea raised by the petitioners.